Why do I feel sympathetic towards the Dzhokhar Tsarnaev?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am NOT condoning Dzhokhar's actions but you do realize that George Washington would be considered a terrorist by the British. It is all a matter of perspective...

man that is offensive. Washington targeted civilians to spread terror?

I agree. Offensive and ridiculous comparison. Washington absolutely did not target civilians to spread terror. Offensive, ludicrous, and stupid.

[Anonymous]

Could the US be held responsible for Boston bombing and destroying Dzhokhar’s life?

Is that legally possible? As the US are charging Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, he in turn could accuse the US for not protecting him, a US citizen by law, from the danger of being exposed (physically and psychologically) to a potential terrorist – Tamerlan Tsarnaev, if he was indeed one. Despite Russian calls, FBI ignored the risk that Tamerlan constituted. The US might therefore be held responsible for destroying the lives and health of Boston bombing victims, as well as destroying Dzhokhar’s life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is such an odd story. A kid who was smart (skipped a grade), popular, athletic, social and had a bright future. No sign of involvement with any radical organization or activities. No antisocial behavior. Just a typical teen.

The only thing I saw was that he had started failing courses in the last year. And that one girl said he acted oddly at her house (spread string cheese all over her couch). So something was going on. What I feel sympathy for is that when things started going wrong, that there wasn't someone ( a positive influence) there to step in and help him. I am guessing it was his brother he turned too and it sounds like his brother was possibly involved in radical organizations.

He also carried on after the bombing as though life was fine - went to class, to the gym, went to a party, posted on twitter. Almost like he completely compartmentalized or disassociated himself from what he did just a day or two before.

I too hold him fully responsible for his actions, he knew what he was doing but I am very interested in how he got caught up in this.

He grew up in a war torn country and is from a culture of ethnic hate. How is this odd?

He didn't grow up in Chechnya; in fact, information is scarce that he even visited it. Most of his life unfolded outside of war-torn anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am NOT condoning Dzhokhar's actions but you do realize that George Washington would be considered a terrorist by the British. It is all a matter of perspective...

man that is offensive. Washington targeted civilians to spread terror?

I agree. Offensive and ridiculous comparison. Washington absolutely did not target civilians to spread terror. Offensive, ludicrous, and stupid.

Uh yes. Washington targeted civilians who were loyalists to the British monarchy. Sheesh - do kids even try to pay attention in history class anymore?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:White privilige. Ain't it grand? Even Lefty liberals love a cute white kid. If his name had been Jamall Jackson and he had cornrows and he screwed up looking face you would be ready to hang

Not a lefty or a righty but I think in that situation, the right would be more ready to hang. At least based on history, lefty liberals typically bend over backwards to help a kid with cornrows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Could the US be held responsible for Boston bombing and destroying Dzhokhar’s life?

Is that legally possible? As the US are charging Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, he in turn could accuse the US for not protecting him, a US citizen by law, from the danger of being exposed (physically and psychologically) to a potential terrorist – Tamerlan Tsarnaev, if he was indeed one. Despite Russian calls, FBI ignored the risk that Tamerlan constituted. The US might therefore be held responsible for destroying the lives and health of Boston bombing victims, as well as destroying Dzhokhar’s life.

Stupid. These people were/are radicals. Did I do whatever my brother wanted? No. Dzhokar should have turned in Tamalan to the authorities. He had the information. The unibomber brother turned that thing in.

Dzhokar destroyed his own life. Please take your ridiculous babble elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:White privilige. Ain't it grand? Even Lefty liberals love a cute white kid. If his name had been Jamall Jackson and he had cornrows and he screwed up looking face you would be ready to hang

Not a lefty or a righty but I think in that situation, the right would be more ready to hang. At least based on history, lefty liberals typically bend over backwards to help a kid with cornrows.

What history books have you been reading?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could the US be held responsible for Boston bombing and destroying Dzhokhar’s life?

Is that legally possible? As the US are charging Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, he in turn could accuse the US for not protecting him, a US citizen by law, from the danger of being exposed (physically and psychologically) to a potential terrorist – Tamerlan Tsarnaev, if he was indeed one. Despite Russian calls, FBI ignored the risk that Tamerlan constituted. The US might therefore be held responsible for destroying the lives and health of Boston bombing victims, as well as destroying Dzhokhar’s life.

Stupid. These people were/are radicals. Did I do whatever my brother wanted? No. Dzhokar should have turned in Tamalan to the authorities. He had the information. The unibomber brother turned that thing in.

Dzhokar destroyed his own life. Please take your ridiculous babble elsewhere.

Your rudeness does not strengthen your argument. I simply wondered if it was possible to do so. Dzhokhar is already paying for his (allegedly) choices. I presume you are from the US; don't be surprised by more terrorist attacks out of the blue, if you don't see any responsibility of the US government.

[Anonymous]

His mom was on a watch list 18 months ago. Sounds like an all in the family kind of business. Is she coming back to proclaim his innocence? Or is she afraid she'll go to jail for theft?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:White privilige. Ain't it grand? Even Lefty liberals love a cute white kid. If his name had been Jamall Jackson and he had cornrows and he screwed up looking face you would be ready to hang

Not a lefty or a righty but I think in that situation, the right would be more ready to hang. At least based on history, lefty liberals typically bend over backwards to help a kid with cornrows.

What history books have you been reading?

The ones showing that lynchings generally happened in the south which views the word "liberal" as a negative term (and I am from the south).

[Anonymous]

I can't help but feel sorry for him after hearing a report that he had been moved to a 10x10 cell with a slot for meals and an observation window. I just thought, god kid, you had a perfectly good life and now you will be looking at cell walls for the rest of your entire life. How could you do this to yourself?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate people like the OP. They feel sympathy based on their own limited experience (nice white boy = wasted potential = feel sad.)

This kind of crap is not a real commitment to social justice or equality. It's just emotional. And it's the same narrative trotted out to defend rapists (his life is ruined!) and the same reason why statistically African Americans get harsher punishments for the same crimes. They don't look as innocent.

The OP thinks she is some greater evolved being acting on some greater moral calling, but really it's just intellectual laziness with a dash of racism.

I agree with you 100% and this thread is absolutely sickening to me. When folks decide to go down the "blacks are more criminal" line of drivel, REMEMBER this thread. No longer ask yourself why blacks are supposedly more criminal, but instead ask yourself why you are more likely to *see* that black person as being a criminal (and judge him harshly as a result).

To imagine someone having sympathy for DT without ANY proof that he was brainwashed is stunning. Many of you should be ashamed of yourselves. You're probably the same sort who defend George Zimmerman for protecting himself against the "thug" Trayvon Martin and/or the same type who would clutch your purse when you pass a black guy on the street. I mean, he doesn't look like you, so he must be up to no good, right?

I've always maintained that white people afford other white people the benefit of the doubt and this thread is proof of that. Sick, sick, sick.

If said black guy look neat and clean and is handsome, I'm more likely to want to sleep with him If black guy has pants hanging off his butt, gold teeth, taking on the thug persona, I'm more likely to think he IS a thug.

Same thing for white guys, asian guys, hispanic guys, ad nauseum.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://sadhillnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/trayvon-martin-photo-media-george-zimmerman-photo-bias-sad-hill-news2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://sadhillnews.com/2012/03/25/the-trayvon-martin-our-government-subsidized-media-wont-let-you-see&h=410&w=547&sz=155&tbnid=7Yj4ql5z2i6QfM:&tbnh=99&tbnw=132&prev=/search%3Fq%3DTrayvon%2Bmartin%2Bactual%2Bphoto%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=Trayvon+martin+actual+photo&usg=__ShlC8j4dOTMwITUYsLw8LZjKVlg=&docid=q1zXbPQ2H5KWlM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KyuAUZPHCYmt0AHxzoCgBg&ved=0CDkQ9QEwAg&dur=367

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could the US be held responsible for Boston bombing and destroying Dzhokhar’s life?

Is that legally possible? As the US are charging Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, he in turn could accuse the US for not protecting him, a US citizen by law, from the danger of being exposed (physically and psychologically) to a potential terrorist – Tamerlan Tsarnaev, if he was indeed one. Despite Russian calls, FBI ignored the risk that Tamerlan constituted. The US might therefore be held responsible for destroying the lives and health of Boston bombing victims, as well as destroying Dzhokhar’s life.

Stupid. These people were/are radicals. Did I do whatever my brother wanted? No. Dzhokar should have turned in Tamalan to the authorities. He had the information. The unibomber brother turned that thing in.

Dzhokar destroyed his own life. Please take your ridiculous babble elsewhere.

Exactly!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am NOT condoning Dzhokhar's actions but you do realize that George Washington would be considered a terrorist by the British. It is all a matter of perspective...

man that is offensive. Washington targeted civilians to spread terror?

I agree. Offensive and ridiculous comparison. Washington absolutely did not target civilians to spread terror. Offensive, ludicrous, and stupid.

Uh yes. Washington targeted civilians who were loyalists to the British monarchy. Sheesh - do kids even try to pay attention in history class anymore?

Uh, no, he did not. Please try to read up on your country's history. It's important. There are various versions of "history for dummies" in circulation that might be helpful for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am NOT condoning Dzhokhar's actions but you do realize that George Washington would be considered a terrorist by the British. It is all a matter of perspective...

man that is offensive. Washington targeted civilians to spread terror?

I agree. Offensive and ridiculous comparison. Washington absolutely did not target civilians to spread terror. Offensive, ludicrous, and stupid.

Uh yes. Washington targeted civilians who were loyalists to the British monarchy. Sheesh - do kids even try to pay attention in history class anymore?

Uh, no, he did not. Please try to read up on your country's history. It's important. There are various versions of "history for dummies" in circulation that might be helpful for you.

the winners always get to write history.
you could paint any war heroes potentially as terrorists. they all had a mission, they killed people to achieve it. those who won are heroes. those who lost were terrorists.